On 14 June 2004, AMCRAN coordinated a joint open letter from leading Muslim organisations to Federal MPs and Senators raising concerns about the effects of the anti-terrorism legislation on the Muslim community. A media release was sent out about these concerns.

Many MPs and Senators responded to the open letter. Most of the replies were form responses, but several took the time to address (to various extents) the issues raised in the open letter. The Attorney-General Mr Philip Ruddock's response in particular was of concern to AMCRAN and follow-up correspondences ensued.

The parliamentarians who replied (with their letter if appropriate) were:

I refer to your letter dated 2 August 2004 in response to our open
letter to all federal ministers of parliament on 9 June 2004. I thank
you for your detailed and long-awaited response.

We are all too aware of the details of anti-terrorism laws in this
country that you have painstakingly outlined in your letter, as we have
recently released a know-your-rights guide that outlines people’s
rights and responsibilities under these laws, a copy of which we have
forwarded to you previously.

However, we are not convinced that your response adequately deals with our concerns as raised in our original correspondence.

Firstly, you claim that “the laws target terrorists regardless of their
religious, ideological or political motivation. Terrorist organisations
listed for the purposes of the criminal law have been shown to be
directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or
fostering the doing of a terrorist act.”

Your statement may be correct, but it is not complete. While it
is arguable that organisations on the current list are “terrorist”
organisations, there are other organisations that are considered by
many other governments to be terrorist that are not on the proscribed
list.

We refer you to the report produced by the Parliamentary library ,
which finds the process of proscribing terrorist organisations under
Australian law to be largely subjective. It poses the question why
organisations such as the Shining Path, the Tamil Tigers, Real IRA and
Kahane Chai are not listed as terrorist organisations, while
Palestinian Islamic Jihad is. We contend that your department is not
applying a level playing field, as it is not applying the same criteria
to Muslim organisations as it is to non-Muslim organisations. We
specifically ask for clarification as to why the four organisations
mentioned above are not listed as terrorist organisations while
Palestinian Islamic Jihad is.

Counter-terrorism legislation

You stated that “it is appropriate to treat suspected terrorists in the
same way that we currently treat suspected murderers”. We do not
disagree that terrorists should be treated in the same way as
murderers, but the problem lies in the breadth of the definition of a
‘terrorist’ and possible terrorist offences under Australian
anti-terrorism legislation. It is unjustifiable that people should be
treated the same way as murderers for merely being a member, an
informal member, or taking steps to become a member, of an
organisation. With the introduction of the new offence of associating
with terrorist organisations, why should a person who does nothing more
than speak to someone twice be treated in the same way as a murderer?
We seek clarification as to why you insist on conflating many different
offences, ranging in punishment from 3 years to life, with the offence
of murder punishable by imprisonment for life.

ASIO legislation

You stated that “the Government will continue to monitor the adequacy
and effectiveness of the legislation in light of any issues that arise
from further experience in its implementation. The Government is
determined to take appropriate action to ensure relevant authorities
have the tools they need to be able to safeguard Australia’s national
security.”

It is not evident what measures have been put in place to monitor the
adequacy and effectiveness of the anti-terrorism laws. We are yet to
see the outcome of any review or monitoring of the laws. We believe
that the issues we raised in our original correspondence, as well as
the undeniable infringement of human and civil rights warrant
investigation and review of the laws, yet the Government has made no
such commitment.

Indeed the government has indirectly reduced the necessity to report on
the effects of anti-terrorism legislation by allocating police-style
powers to a security and intelligence organisation. While the
Australian Federal Police are governed by laws that require them to
provide and record much information, ASIO does not have the same
obligations and can eternally hide behind the overused claims of
“national security.”

We request clarification about what specific mechanisms the Government
has put in place to monitor the adequacy and effectiveness of the
legislation, particularly from the perspectives of individuals
questioned under this legislation, and what reporting obligations you
intend to place on ASIO to ensure the protection of Australian
citizens’ rights.

Civil Rights

You stated, “In creating laws to respond to
the new security environment, the Government is striving towards the
twin goals of security and justice. The Government does not assume that
protecting national security is opposed to protecting our civil rights,
particularly the most fundamental right of all – the right to human
security. The achievement of these goals should not be seen as separate
ideals. Indeed, Australia’s human rights obligations under both the
ICCPR and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights include the right
to security.”

We do not disagree that every person has the right to security, and
that the Government has a role to play in protecting national security.
However, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also guarantee other rights,
such as the right to liberty, equality before the law without
distinction of any kind, including race, colour, religion, or political
opinion, the right to freedom of movement, the right to leave and to
return to his country, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly
and association. In addition, no one shall be subjected to arbitrary
arrest or detention, and no one shall be subjected to arbitrary
interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to
attacks upon his honour and reputation. Anti-terrorism laws in this
country do not have regard to these other equally legitimate and
important rights.

The twin goals of security and justice should not be seen as separate
ideals, but we do not believe that the Government has struck an
appropriate balance. It seems that the Government is only too keen to
implement laws that give ASIO and the police more power than necessary,
yet there has not been any move towards protecting the other civil
rights of all citizens. It is particularly worrying that the Government
hides behind its rhetoric of safeguarding Australia’s national security
while disregarding the real effect that these laws and their
application have had on the community.

In fact, we contend that the Government also fails in protecting
people’s right to security. The anti-terror laws have had a
disproportional impact on the Muslim community in Australia, and have
in fact created fear and division both between the Muslim community
with the wider community, and also within Muslims themselves. The
discrimination and vilification faced by Muslims since September 11
have been extensively documented in the recently-released Isma report
by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. In particular,
the report documents experience of discrimination and prejudice in
relation to the police and anti-terrorist laws:

a substantial number of young Arabic men felt that they were dealt with unfairly by Police because they were Arab;

community and school leaders felt that the police were stirring up trouble;

allegations of police engaged in discriminatory conduct “such as calling people Bin Ladens” or “terrorists”

The report on page 67 states that “Several consultation
participants felt the Muslim community in Australia had been unfairly
targeted in investigations by ASIO officers and Australian Federal
Police officers following the Bali bombings in October 2002.” The
report also documents concern about the treatment of Muslims in counter
terrorist investigations. In addition the report documents that “some
consultation participants believed their human rights were at risk of
violation under these new laws”.

During consultation with nine young people in Adelaide, four of the
participants reported being questioned by ASIO in their homes following
the wake of the January 2002 national security public campaign and
believed this was done solely on the basis that they are Muslim.

The report also documented participants’ concerns of
surveillance by neighbours and colleagues following the federal
government’s national security campaign launched in early 2003, where
neighbours reported routine domestic activities and family gatherings.
Initial consultation with key community groups reveals that there are
heightened concerns that these kinds of incidence will continue with
the current anti-terrorism provisions.

Dr William Jonas, acting race discrimination Commissioner
stated in the report: “The need for action is urgent. In the current
environment of fear and suspicion fostered by terrorism and the ‘war on
terror’, our multicultural values of social equity and respect for
diversity are at risk of diminishing”.

There is little doubt that the additional legislation has
served to ostracise the Muslim community even further. This is not to
mention ASIO’s behaviour, which, as indicated above, has created
tension between the Muslim community and ASIO. We submit that this
legislation – and particularly the recent Anti-Terrorism Bill (No 2)
with its association offence – has made cooperation with authorities
even harder for Muslims. Yet, according to your Department’s proscribed
terrorist list, only Muslim terrorist organisations are a threat to
Australia. We seek specific clarification as to how damaging relations
with the ethnic group that you (somewhat dubiously) suspect is most
likely to have information on terrorism related activities serves
Australians’ national security.

Discrimination on the ground of religion or race

In addition, your assertion that “the Australian Government condemns
discrimination on the ground of religion or race” seems untenable in
light of the fact that the federal Racial Discrimination Act does not
prohibit discrimination or vilification on the ground of religion, but
only the grounds of race, colour, descent, and national or ethnic
origin. This is significant in that it leaves an aperture in the
national system of protection against discrimination on the basis of
religion. The Muslim community is especially vulnerable in this context
as it is comprised of heterogeneous membership, spanning various ethnic
and racial backgrounds. Muslims who experience religious discrimination
(but not necessarily hostility based on nationality or race) cannot
avail themselves of existing anti-discrimination mechanisms. This
situation is distinct, by way of example, from that of Australia’s
Jewish population who can seek recourse to the Racial Discrimination
Act on the basis of belonging to the Jewish race.

The absence of federal religious vilification laws becomes even more
pertinent in light of extensive reports of discrimination and
vilification against the Muslim community, as documented is the Isma
report discussed above, which found that the majority of respondents
had experienced some form of harassment and prejudice because of their
religion. Given the Commission’s findings of widespread discrimination
and vilification on the Muslim community, it is submitted that
Australia’s failure to enact federal laws to prohibit discrimination
and vilification on the ground of religion is a direct contravention of
Article 20 of the ICCPR. We seek specific clarification as to how you
plan to address this gap in the legislation.

We urge you to give due consideration to the issues we have raised
above. We look forward to your speedy response to our specific requests
for clarification.